While it is hubris to assume that my understanding is closer to the original, core, real purpose etc than a whole bunch of other people's, we all do it to a greater or lesser extent, I think. And it's fair enough to point it out too.

But if this hubris leads one to delve deeper into practice, to strengthen and deepen the faith in the Dhamma, the price is worth it. It's only when it becomes another thing in ego's arsenal, another thing to hoard and hold on to, and feel important for rediscovering the "one true Dhamma," then it's a problem. Then we are just carrying the goddamn raft around, ever improving, oiling sealing, extending, showing it off and feeling ever-so-proud, while the others, possibly leaky and less perfect ones, have long set sail.

Anyway just some musings. Best ignored as usual!

What was the question? Ah, is there such a thing as the one true Dhamma?

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are stressful.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."

Until it is discovered and realised for one's self, there will only be the outer manifestations of the "One True Dhamma"... none of which truly are.

You mention the raft analogy and it is apt.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

While it is hubris to assume that my understanding is closer to the original, core, real purpose etc than a whole bunch of other people's, we all do it to a greater or lesser extent, I think. And it's fair enough to point it out too.

But if this hubris leads one to delve deeper into practice, to strengthen and deepen the faith in the Dhamma, the price is worth it. It's only when it becomes another thing in ego's arsenal, another thing to hoard and hold on to, and feel important for rediscovering the "one true Dhamma," then it's a problem. Then we are just carrying the goddamn raft around, ever improving, oiling sealing, extending, showing it off and feeling ever-so-proud, while the others, possibly leaky and less perfect ones, have long set sail.

Anyway just some musings. Best ignored as usual!

What was the question? Ah, is there such a thing as the one true Dhamma?

I think this has been mentioned indirectly on a couple of occasions, but not actually deliberately addressing this point.

I agree with retro in that I too think there is, but it is a case that the motivation has to be there to find it, or at least try, and is one reason I am not keen on describing myself directly as a buddhist X, Y or Z.

regarding pointing out that an interpretation is just that, an interpretation, I think there are two main reasons why this would be done, one is to validate our own position, and I don't think this is the main reason why people point it out here on DW, although those who do, do this I have noticed they will tend to do it regularly, but that is just my experience so far, and secondly to help the other person see new options or where they are interpreting wrongly when a discussion gets 'heated' and the facts may get blured or the expression is faulty due to....

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Dan74 wrote:What was the question? Ah, is there such a thing as the one true Dhamma?

Yes, this is a good question, which goes to the heart of many disagreements.

None of us are in a position to answer that question authoritatively, but I guess many (most?) of us here would agree that the teachings say "yes". Since we have not yet realised this True Dhamma, on the more practical level, the question is: "Is there one True Approachto the Dhamma?"

There are many long threads, here and elsewhere, revolving around the differences between Mahayana and early Buddhist approaches and it might be helpful to recognise that different approaches to Theravada contain many of the same issues.

What to make of the differences in approach between schools/individuals seeking the True Dhamma?

I have a simplistic proposal: The different approaches to Dhamma are a matter of which commentators you believe.

In a Theravada context you might turn this into some catchy face-offs, such as Buddhaghosa vs Buddhadasa. Once we have Theravada sorted we'll have Buddhadasa vs Bodhidharma, and Nanavira vs Nagarjuna...

Do all approaches to the same True Dhamma? We don't know.

Tiltbillings has frequently commented that tolerance is about accepting that there are different points of view, not about trying to prove that two views are compatible by attempting to redefine the other person's view. I think that this is important to keep in mind.

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

mikenz66 wrote:I have a simplistic proposal: The different approaches to Dhamma are a matter of which commentators you believe.

Respectfully, I find that far too simple, as it assumes a few things...

1. It assumes you always believe or accept what certain commentators say2. It assumes you always disagree with or refuse what other commentators say3. You can't approach the Buddhavacana on its own merits without a commentarial layer superimposed over the top

Since I always evaluate what commentators say against the Buddhavacana and consistency with my own experiences, it's not a blanket "believe" or "don't believe"... it's more a case of "this seems to fit" or "that doesn't fit".

For example, I think Buddhaghosa's instructions on metta meditation contained in the Visuddhimagga are very good. I think much of what he writes about morality in the opening sections of the Visuddhimagga are very good too. There are parts of the Visuddhimagga I'm completely on the fence about, in relation to meditation, because they go so far beyond what I myself have experienced. However, there's certain part of the Visuddhimagga which I don't think are very good, and the main one of these is the overly convoluted and impractical explanation of dependent origination which bears limited resemblance to what's in the suttas. Clearly, I don't think everything he says is wrong... if I thought that, I'd never have bothered to read the entire Visuddhimagga and several commentaries to major suttas.

Therefore, the statement that "The different approaches to Dhamma are a matter of which commentators you believe" doesn't sit well in relation to my experience because I don't simply believe (or want to believe, or try to accept) what people say simply on account of who they are and whether I like the bulk of what they say.... everything is evaluated against the Dhammavinaya and my own experience. I could not adopt such an "accept" or "don't accept" approoach at an individual or sectarian level, because for me, it is too passive and I'd rather investigate the apparent cracks, inconsistencies and incongruencies than pave over them.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Of course. I was trying to keep it simple. As Dan would appreciate: When studying cows one often begins with the assumption that all cows are approximately spherical...

How about the following, which probably covers most of us:

Different approaches to the Dhamma are a result of pondering on a combination of:

Taking the advice of various teachers and/or friends;

Reading a selection of texts believed be reasonably accurately reflect the actual teaching of the Buddha;

Reading various ancient and modern commentaries on the above;

Carrying out various practises based on the advice gleaned from the above;

Personal experience.

The approach an individual takes is not necessarily constant, nor is it necessarily identical to the approach advocated by any particular commentator.

Feel free to add points, but in my view the details of the list are not particularly relevant to the question:"Is there One True Approach to the Dhamma?"

It appears to me beyond question (since we have plenty of empirical evidence from this board) that different people (all of whom seem to be quite sincere about it) have different interpretations of what "Preserving/Finding the True Dhamma" means. In fact, it sometimes appears to me that the number of interpretations is close to the number of members...

Of course there is one true Dhamma and that is reality, the truth. Now the crux of the matter is to find that truth some 2500 years after the Buddha passed away. Our only option is to use what he taught as a guide, remain humble in what we think we know, and strive to see it for ourselves.

Sometimes I think we all fall victim to the same thought processes as in the Blind men and the Elephant simile.

mikenz66 wrote:How about the following, which probably covers most of us:

Different approaches to the Dhamma are a result of pondering on a combination of:

Taking the advice of various teachers and/or friends;

Reading a selection of texts believed be reasonably accurately reflect the actual teaching of the Buddha;

Reading various ancient and modern commentaries on the above;

Carrying out various practises based on the advice gleaned from the above;

Personal experience.

The approach an individual takes is not necessarily constant, nor is it necessarily identical to the approach advocated by any particular commentator.

mikenz66 wrote:Feel free to add points, but in my view the details of the list are not particularly relevant to the question:"Is there One True Approach to the Dhamma?"

That's an interesting alternative question, but to me the word "true" seems a bit superfluous, because an approach either takes one towards or away from the Dhamma. Is there only one way to the Dhamma, no... not even satipatthana which is sometimes mistranslated (?) to constitute the "only way", rather than "one way" path to the Dhamma.

mikenz66 wrote:It sometimes appears to me that the number of interpretations is close to the number of members...

mikenz66 wrote:Are most of us right or most of us wrong?

We're all right and wrong in different degrees I imagine, but I think the important thing is whether we're going towards the Dhamma, circumabulating it, or going away from it.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead:to passion, not to dispassion;to being fettered, not to being unfettered;to accumulating, not to shedding;to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty;to discontent, not to contentment;to entanglement, not to seclusion;to laziness, not to aroused persistence;to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead:to dispassion, not to passion;to being unfettered, not to being fettered;to shedding, not to accumulating;to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement;to contentment, not to discontent;to seclusion, not to entanglement;to aroused persistence, not to laziness;to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" - — AN 8.53

The heart of the path is SO simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice. Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing. Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle. - Ajahn Chah

We're all right and wrong in different degrees I imagine, but I think the important thing is whether we're going towards the Dhamma, circumabulating it, or going away from it.

Perhaps if we keep it on the right during the circumambulation, everything will be OK...

retrofuturist wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:"Is there One True Approach to the Dhamma?"

That's an interesting alternative question, but to me the word "true" seems a bit superfluous, because an approach either takes one towards or away from the Dhamma. Is there only one way to the Dhamma, no... not even satipatthana which is sometimes mistranslated (?) to constitute the "only way", rather than "one way" path to the Dhamma.

Hmm, I was trying to take a more general view than such specifics. How about this then? "Is it possible to decide which approach is more effective?"

mikenz66 wrote:"Is it possible to decide which approach is more effective?"

I think the quote Bodom provided just above answers that well.

In it there's a bit of a subjective or personalised element to it, because it relates to what promotes dispassion rather than passion for the individual practitioner, and two different people may react differently to the same thing. Someone might see a particular ceremony taking place and interpret it as clinging to rites and rituals and therefore find it best to avoid participation in the ceremony lest it give rise to aversion or clinging - in someone else it might arouse persistence, and therefore be of benefit. Two people may hear a Pet Shop Boys song - one may respond with aversion, and another with clinging - in which case it would be useful for neither, but again, for different reasons.

As you can see from my answer, I think the answer to your question is of a personal nature, rather than something that can be abstractly generalized. In fact, like the quotations I provided in the recent Five Precepts topic, much of the Dhamma is presented by the Buddha in the sense of 'general rules' that only provide definitive recommendation when you take it upon yourself to apply them to your own experience and against the backdrop of your likes and dislikes. Evidently, the application of these general rules will not necessarily result in the same practical recommendations for two different people. The responsibility for working out what to be done is, I think, up to the individual, though others (including those acknowledged as 'teachers') may provide recommendations, assistance and support.

Summing up then, I think there is one true Dhamma, and the only true approach to it is the one that you undertake yourself. No one else can do it for you and even Buddhas only point the way.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

I vote for provable in both cases. In as far as dhamma refers to the transcendent (unutterable) reality, there can only be one by definition. In as far as the Buddhadhamma is concerned there can likewise be just one, namely the one that the Buddha actually taught. As for the second claim, its truth follows directly from the nature of language and algorithms. All you need to prove is that you can create different isomorphic descriptions with language and produce identical results with different algorithms.

Yes. I think that the Buddha distinguished between Dhamma and adhamma. Some things do lead to Nibbana and others lead only to more samsara. The Dhamma seems to include such ancient formulations as the Three Marks, The Eightfold Path, The Four Noble Truths (or Realities), the Brahmaviharas, and the like, and especially the realization of these teachings. Adhamma explicitly includes such things as the Atman, self-glorification, greed, attachment, doctrines of permanence, a Creator, and everything that leads away from the Path to Nibbana.

At the same time, I think that one of the points of AN VIII, 53 (=8.169) is that a great many things may be compatible with the teachings and may support one’s journey to enlightenment. The Path is actually quite broad in that the Buddha seems to say that it includes anything (consistent with the basic teachings I imagine) that gives rise to or enhances your nonattachment, renunciation, simplicity, contentment, etc.

Therefore, if you have a relatively firm foundation in the teachings and practices that come from the Buddha, as well as those which legitimately developed out of these early on, then I think that you may recognize Dhamma in many, different places, not just one. (Your clarity may protect you from mixing Dhamma with adhamma in some of the more unusual Dhamma-recognizing contexts.) One example of learning from another place: I learned from one teacher that problems and adversity are always an opportunity to practice, to develop compassion, nonattachment, insight, and forbearance, and to become aware of how my mind creates its own suffering, partly through the way in which it interprets and embellishes upon experience. I learned from him that with this attitude we may train ourselves to see difficult circumstances as a great help, rather than a hindrance, and incorporate them into the Path. I learned from him that every moment is a teacher and a time to practice, if we remain aware. (This brief summary does not do his teaching justice.) Now this teacher is not a teacher of Theravada, although he certainly embraces Dhamma and rejects adhamma, as defined above. Should I reject this true, helpful Dhammic advice, because I happened to find it in a non-Theravada package? I don’t think so. True wisdom is still wisdom wherever you may find it. I think I’d be crazy not to learn from someone who has cultivated wholesome states to a degree far beyond my own. And I don’t think that confusion or the intermixing of incompatible elements need be the result, at least not for me. I have always desired to understand as many points of view as I can. That is who I am. I still practice Theravada.

I think that Dhamma is one body of truth and many in its forms of expression and practice.

PeterB wrote:A question which is slightly more interesting to me personally is ..why is there a need to have an emotional investment in there NOT being one true Dhamma ?

Leaving aside the "emotional investment" part, some of the worry people have about the idea of there being "one true dhamma" seems to stem from what otherwise is a sound point:

A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior.

Thats the whole point it seems to me. There is an assumption that to hold the view that there is is one true Dhamma is in and of itself negative.I think that begs many questions. I think its actually a positive statement.As I said what interests me is what that response puts aside..i.e. the need to think that there is not one true Dhamma.I dont think it needs an over literal mind to see that the Buddha himself said that there was.

Since this it the Lounge, it's probably good to discuss metta-stuff on this thread, rather than one of our "serious" threads.

Regarding this:

retrofuturist wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:I have a simplistic proposal: The different approaches to Dhamma are a matter of which commentators you believe.

Respectfully, I find that far too simple, as it assumes a few things...

1. It assumes you always believe or accept what certain commentators say2. It assumes you always disagree with or refuse what other commentators say3. You can't approach the Buddhavacana on its own merits without a commentarial layer superimposed over the top

Since I always evaluate what commentators say against the Buddhavacana and consistency with my own experiences, it's not a blanket "believe" or "don't believe"... it's more a case of "this seems to fit" or "that doesn't fit".

I can sympathise with that, but reflecting on how to carry out discussions, I now have a clearer picture of why I sometimes find such a position problematical in discussions here.

The reason is that if one states, or implies, that for the purposes of discussion one is expressing the point of view of commentator X, then it is much easier to keep the conversation at a reasonably impersonal level. I feel that writing: "According to the classical commentaries, Venerable X is mistaken"is more palatable than saying: "According to ME, RETRO is mistaken".

And it is also easier for someone else to join the conversation without appearing to be attacking particular people.

And, most important, it's much easier to back down from a statement like: "According to the classical commentaries, Venerable X is mistaken"than a statement about MY view.

Note that I'm not advocating that you abandon carefully forming your own opinions, I'm simply suggesting that in these debate-style discussions it is often useful to take the position of advocating a well-known point of view for the purpose of clarity and keeping it away from specific personalities.

Let me give an example: In this post: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4420&start=20#p67598 you are speculating about how various people might be approaching things. This is in response to your question to me about "how exactly do you understand...". After me struggling to provide some background you reply that perhaps my views are filtered through the views of my teachers. By which you may or may not be implying would be something negative. I might be tempted to respond sarcastically that it is actually positive because at least my teachers know a thing or two. But in fact my study of Suttas and so on is a rather separate thing from the instructions I get from teachers, which are of a much more immediate and practical nature. I certainly don't spend silent retreats discussing DO, I give a short report on what I observe and take instructions...

Personally I think that these metta questions of how and why one thinks this particular view is better than this other one is not very useful when trying to address technical Dhamma points. Let's just put Nanavira up against Buddhaghosa and be done with it.

PeterB wrote:Thats the whole point it seems to me. There is an assumption that to hold the view that there is is one true Dhamma is in and of itself negative.I think that begs many questions. I think its actually a positive statement.As I said what interests me is what that response puts aside..i.e. the need to think that there is not one true Dhamma.I dont think it needs an over literal mind to see that the Buddha himself said that there was.

I agree. However, as I said in my last post, it's probably not very helpful to say something like: "Member X is completely confused about the Dhamma and if only he'd listen to me things would be OK."